Governing scheme for Compassionate Appointment: Supreme Court refers matter to 3-judge Bench

Which is the scheme on the basis of which compassionate appointment can be made – is it the scheme which was in force at the time when an application for compassionate appointment is made or is it the scheme which is in force when the application is being considered?.A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court will decide this matter after a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices UU Lalit and Indu Malhotra today noted the divergence in opinion by different benches of the Supreme Court of the same strength..The Bench, therefore, opined that the matter should be considered by a larger Bench preferably of three judges..Background.In this particular case, the father of the respondent who was working with the petitioner, bank died while in service..A request was made for appointment on compassionate grounds by the respondent on March 3, 2005. As on that date, compassionate appointment could be granted to the dependents of employees dying in harness. However, instructions were issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance on July 14, 2004 to frame an appropriate scheme for payment of monetary assistance in lieu of compassionate appointment..Before the application of the respondent could be considered, the petitioner-bank formally approved a scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. This scheme was circulated on August 4, 2005..According to the petitioner-bank, the application of the respondent for compassionate appointment could not, therefore, be considered. The challenge to the action on part of the bank by way of Writ Petition was accepted by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. This led to the appeal in Supreme Court by the bank..Arguments.The counsel for the petitioner bank cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and another vs. Raj Kumar. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court had held that a compassionate appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. Thus, when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant..He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh..On the other hand, reliance was placed by the counsel appearing for the respondent on the decision in Canara Bank and another vs. M. Mahesh Kumar in which it was held that an application for compassionate appointment has to be considered under the scheme which is in force when the application was made..Judgment.The Court noted that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner proceed on the premise that there is no vested right to have the matter considered under the former scheme and the governing scheme would be one which was in force when the applications came up for consideration..On the other hand, the decision relied upon by the respondent proceeds on a different principle and stipulates that the governing scheme would be the former scheme and any subsequent scheme that came into force after the claim was raised would not be applicable..The Court also observed that the decision in Canara Bank did notice the earlier two decisions in State Bank of India and MGB Gramin Bank..Stating that the principles emanating from these two lines of decisions do not reconcile, the Court held that the matter requires to be considered by a larger Bench of at least three judges..“The principles emanating from these two lines of decisions, in our considered view are not consistent and do not reconcile. The matter therefore requires consideration by a larger Bench of at least three Hon’ble Judges of this Court.”.It, therefore, ordered the Registry to place the case before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of appropriate Bench..Read the order below.